Chapter 11. The Problem of Describing the TIM

The street writhes, tongueless… — V. Mayakovsky

Translator’s note on terminology

Churyumov uses his own eight-function nomenclature alongside Augustinavičiūtė’s Model A. Abbreviations used throughout:

Rus.	Eng. abbr.	Full name	Model A position
ППФ	PPF	program-potential function	1
КЗФ	CPF	communicative-probing function	2
АНФ	ALF	adaptive-load (adaptational-load) function	4
ККФ	CCF	conservative-critical (also: communicative-critical) function	3
ЭРФ	ERF	expectational-resource function	5
ММФ	MMF	motivational-mobilizational function	6
ИВФ	ITF	imperative-temporal function	7
РТФ	RTF	realizational-technological function	8

Note: Churyumov’s block assignments are his own — ALF and CCF form SUPEREGO, ERF and MMF form SUPERID, ITF and RTF form ID. He also uses fractional notation (e.g. “function 3/1”, “function 4/1”, “function 2/2”).

Aspect symbols (capital = extraverted, lowercase = introverted): I / i — intuition; S / s — sensorics; L / l — logic; E / e — ethics. Other abbreviations: TIM — type of information metabolism; IA — information aspect; PP — potential possibilities; AT — archetype; ARP — (Churyumov’s) system of Reinin-type dichotomies; M\V — mental/vital rings.

Type abbreviations in the tables: Ки = Don Quixote (ILE), Дю = Dumas (SEI), Гю = Hugo (ESE), Ро = Robespierre (LII), Гм = Hamlet (EIE), Го = Gorky (LSI), Жу = Zhukov (SLE), Ес = Yesenin (IEI), Ло = London (LIE), Др = Dreiser (ESI), На = Napoleon (SEE), Ба = Balzac (ILI), Ге = Huxley (IEE), Гб = Gabin (SLI), Шт = Stierlitz (LSE), До = Dostoevsky (EII).

1. The problem

When one compares the descriptions of socionic types found in the existing literature, what leaps out is a considerable discrepancy — not only in the details, but in what ought to constitute the very basis of a type’s characterisation. This is partly explained by the idiosyncrasies of each author’s presentation, which is sometimes exceptionally picturesque. Still, it is highly plausible that the cause lies in differing understandings of Model A and in the absence of sufficiently well-grounded rules for reading it adequately. Aušra gave examples of remarkable interpretations of the models of several types, but from those examples it is not always clear how, by what rules, such an interpretation is carried out.

To a first approximation, the problem of describing the TIM in socionics can be reduced to a more or less successful interpretation of the corresponding archetype, expressed by Model A or by the corresponding symbolic formula. This process may also be represented as the transformation of an archetype into a conceptual-imagistic series. Hence we need well-grounded principles and rules for interpreting socionic symbols and their combinations. The interpretation of symbolic combinations within the model depends, above all, on the semantics of the function, the semantics of the IA, and the semantics of the function adjacent within the block. Taking all possible constraints into account, we obtain 8 × 8 × 2 = 128 primary interpretations.

Before turning to the methodology of the primary interpretation of symbolic formulae in socionics, let us examine some of the defects that can be detected in the descriptions of TIMs in the socionic literature. Let us also note that a typologically more or less reliable general understanding of all the types does exist in socionics. The principal disagreements lie in the interpretation of the functions and blocks. Beyond that, in type descriptions one may encounter redundant, non-obligatory details that fall outside the scope of socionic generalisation — details that are, admittedly, sometimes very charming from the standpoint of belles-lettres.

Qualities too general and too particular

In describing a type, one often names qualities that are either too general or too particular in character. “Too general” means that the trait applies not only to the given type but to some other type or types as well — possibly even to all types. In that case the trait loses whatever differentiating value it might have had. Thus, if one says of Don Quixote that he is distinguished by inquisitiveness, then although this is true, it applies not only to his type. It is highly plausible that bearers of all TIMs may be distinguished by inquisitiveness, in which case the trait is not differentiating. It is not impossible that in this case the problem is connected with the absence of a specification and explication of the concept of inquisitiveness. Are inquisitiveness and curiosity opposed to one another? Can inquisitiveness be correlated with intuition or logic, and curiosity with sensorics or ethics? Does inquisitiveness differ in direction and intensity? For example, someone may be inquisitive with respect to technical novelties yet take no interest whatsoever in fashion or culinary recipes. One person knows everything about football; another collects information about ballet with great interest.

The heightened level of inquisitiveness in bearers of the Don Quixote type (Il) can be explained by the position of intuition and logic in the EGO block — but the same information aspects are found in the EGO block of Balzac (iL), Robespierre (lI) and London (Li). Can the degree of inquisitiveness of these types be distinguished irrespective of concrete individuals? The answers to these questions depend on the definitions chosen for the basic working concepts.

One may speak of a trait as too particular when a feature observed in one person, and proper only to him, is transferred to all representatives of his type — or even to a group of types. “Loves washing up and does the dishes with pleasure” — someone about Robespierre. “Gets up at half past five and starts sweeping the floor” — someone about Hugo. Such features do not contradict the models of these types, but they do not apply to all representatives of them without exception. And besides, getting up at half past five and sweeping the floor could perfectly well be done by representatives of other types too. At any rate it does not contradict the models of Stierlitz, Don Quixote, Hamlet, London, or Balzac. And yet my own mother, who belonged to the Yesenin type, would get up at six in the morning, tidy the flat, and then cook at the stove, singing songs while she did it — and if the latter follows perfectly well from the model of Yesenin, the former, it would seem, does not.

Confusion of aspects

Not infrequently the interpretation of one aspect is mixed with the interpretation of another, or is assigned to a different function. Here is a fragment of a description of Dreiser’s (eS) ALF [2]: “l — structural logic. Strives to analyse (l) the situation from all sides and draw an objective (l), unambiguous (l) conclusion (l). In public (e) he puts on the mask (e) of a dry and dispassionate person (l+e). Depends (e) on established norms (e) and tried-and-tested methods of action (L). Evaluates everything from the standpoint of common sense (l) and rational egoism (e). Forces (S) himself to do what the rules of the game require (e). Demands (S) the same of those around him. Requires physical distance (l).” (The symbolic commentary in parentheses is mine — S. Ch.)

Here one can see that the logical interpretations of the logical aspect are, if I am not mistaken, mixed with ethical, sensory and technological interpretations. Of course this can be partly explained by the difficulty of verbally interpreting archetypes, which is precisely why the problem requires deep theoretical elaboration. But already the first phrase in the description cited, although connected with the sense of the IA, unfortunately does not correspond to the semantics of the adaptive-load function (ALF). This function characterises the behaviour of a TIM’s bearer in extreme situations or under forceful pressure from the environment — which may sometimes coincide. And no doubt eS might, in such situations, try to “analyse the situation from all sides and draw an objective, unambiguous conclusion”. At any rate one could recommend this to him, and it might well be useful to him. Nevertheless, proceeding from the maximally generalised sense of socionic concepts, one must take into account that logic here is understood not merely as a system of correct argumentation but far more broadly — as the communicative use of information, as a speech flow directed at forming conviction, as thinking and knowledge, finally. And given the semantics of the ALF, the archetype of introverted logic here may be understood as a highly inventive, sophisticated verbal resistance. Inventive and sophisticated because extraverted intuition stands adjacent within the block. Yes, logical argumentation may also be brought into play here — subjectively adapted argumentation, admittedly. This means that lying, for example, may be used. What matters, however, is that any and all speech means are realised here, including those directed at forming and altering one’s own convictions, which may lead to a change in psychological and physical distance from the traumatising object. So eS, reacting to extreme conditions, may — among other things — leave, move to a new place, run away, or exit the situation in any other way, including by driving off the opponent. Therefore, in the characterisation cited above, only the last phrase bears on the generalised behaviour of eS.

Descriptions below the socionic level of generalisation

Phrases in descriptions such as “loves tasty things” can hardly be considered specific to any determinate type. This characteristic does not belong to the socionic level of generalisation, although it may be linked to the position of introverted sensorics in the model. One may say that “loves tasty things” is a situation in which people of different types behave differently — that is, they “love tasty things” differently. Even kindred types, in which the corresponding function and its content coincide, do it differently. Thus Dumas (s in PPF) and Gabin (s in PPF) both rise to the level of connoisseurship, but the first dissolves in emotion while the second seeks a classificatory formula for the concrete taste, approaching tasting technologically. But this too holds only in the limit and situationally.

In the socionic literature one may encounter very beautiful but far from always accurate descriptions of the types. They employ highly artistic metaphors and epithets, which considerably increases their suggestive effect and contributes to the text’s popularity — but which, unfortunately, sometimes lowers the theoretical precision of the interpretation of the corresponding positions of Model A. Often, dealing with such a text, the reader, under the spell of the artistic component, “easily recognises” his own type in it. Sometimes to 30 per cent, sometimes to 70, and sometimes to 100. This phenomenon is well known in psychology and is of not only practical but also theoretical interest. The remarkable socionist V. Pavlov of Dnepropetrovsk did interesting work with this phenomenon when he gave subjects of knowingly different TIMs one and the same averaged typological description — and they all recognised themselves in it.

2. A catalogue of faulty characteristics

Below are examples of characteristics that are too general, too particular, or simply erroneous. I shall not indicate sources here, because my aim is not to criticise particular authors but to attempt to get to the bottom of the problem. Besides, I do not consider my own work free of errors, and I shall gratefully accept critical remarks made in an academic spirit.

“ILE has diverse interests.” — This is not a differential characteristic but a concrete phrase characterising an all-round, cultured person who, by force of circumstance, has the opportunity or the obligation to display his abilities in various spheres. Among extraverts such people are presumably encountered more often, but it is not hard to imagine a corresponding introvert as well. Given what was written above, one could say of the ILE type that he is inclined to diversity of interests; however, a concrete bearer of this TIM may be quite a limited person and have no diverse interests at all.

“Not infrequently the ILE’s enthusiasms are in no way connected with his main work.” — This is the theme of hobbies, and it too is not tied to any one type. As life experience shows, this phrase may apply to representatives of any type.

“ILE strives to collect all the discoveries and innovations bearing on the problem that interests him.” — This is often encountered among scholars, inventors and other people focused on their work, independently of their type.

“ILE is persistent and expansive in disseminating his own developments.” — Here the ILE plainly yields to SLE, LSE and LIE, although he is indeed distinguished by persistence in the development itself. This characteristic applies at the very least to all extraverts, and also to all fanatics.

“To catch fire with an idea, he must make it ‘his own’.” — Applies to all normal people, and therefore has no typological colouring.

“ILE strives to study and explain complex objects or phenomena for which no unambiguous conceptions or logical theories exist.” — Not all ILEs are theoretical scientists, so such a characteristic cannot apply to all representatives of this type without exception.

“ILE elucidates the interconnection of various schemes or structures. He compares different systems with one another.” — Scholars other than the ILE type do this too.

“If an idea does not ‘sit’ in the resulting scheme he has composed, the ILE is capable of altering it and presenting it so that it does after all fit the required framework.” — A typical error of all inexperienced or unscrupulous scholars and fanatics; it does not pertain to the type as such.

“ILE analyses any problem comprehensively, from several sides. He explains in which cases this or that aspect of it works.” — Here the talk is of the use of a methodological instrument that scholars of different types may employ.

“ILE strives to find a single explanation for heterogeneous phenomena.” — Presumably the author had something concrete in mind, but the carelessness of the formulation expands the notion of “heterogeneous phenomena” to such a degree that it may suggest the utterly absurd thought that all representatives of ILE without exception strive to find a single explanation even for such heterogeneous phenomena as “elderberry” and “an uncle in Kiev”, or “a nail” and “a funeral service”.

“It is important for the ILE to find cause-and-effect connections between the particular and the general.” — A not entirely comprehensible turn of phrase. (1) What are “cause-and-effect connections between the particular and the general” — for example, between a concrete cow and the species “cow”? Can it be that the ILE does not see this connection and has to search for it? (2) And what — cause-and-effect connections between particular phenomena do not interest him? That is, here we are dealing with a careless formulation.

“ILE reacts very stormily to an attempt to subject him to restrictions that are, from his point of view, unjustified.” — Applies to all cholerics.

“ILE, during a conversation, tries to seize the whole of his interlocutor’s attention and while doing so gesticulates strongly, speaks in a loud voice, twirls some object in his hands or touches the interlocutor.” — Applies to all cholerics. But this characteristic also contains a too-particular element: “twirls some object in his hands”.

“To people who turn to him for help, the ILE may render that help disinterestedly.” — Not only the ILE.

“ILE shares his personal problems with those around him without embarrassment.” — No doubt such people are encountered. Applies not to the type but to individual persons. It is unclear how this follows from the model.

“ILE is inclined to discuss the behavioural features of people or their way of life.” — Widely encountered among women independently of type; but of course there are many men who also do this.

“ILE examines, sniffs and palpates everything.” — Of course this is an exaggeration. It is hard to imagine a normal person who, in the literal sense of the word, behaves as dogs or monkeys do — yet precisely that image arises when reading this characteristic.

“ILE puts his own comforts in first place.” — Quite the opposite: he is unfussy, but will be grateful if someone provides him with comforts — and even then only if it is done very tactfully.

“ILE is effective in the field of new technologies.” — An incomplete sentence: “effective in the field of developing new technologies” — but for this there must be people beside him who will immediately realise his ideas, while he himself quickly finds a new enthusiasm. Therefore he is good not as a loner but as a link in a well-organised production chain. Such a thing is not often encountered.

“LII knows how to expound his thoughts logically and convincingly.” — This can be applied to all logical types.

“LII possesses a capacity for generating ideas, for brainstorming. He thinks very independently.” — He is not the only one.

“LII is capable of getting to the bottom of a tangled, unclear problem.” — He is not the only one.

“LII penetrates ever deeper into the object of research.” — He is not the only one.

“LII bears hopelessness and lack of prospects badly.” — He is not the only one.

“LII builds schemes and conceptions, clearly separates the main from the secondary.” — He is not the only one, and not all people of this TIM do this, since besides scholars one also encounters housewives among representatives of LII.

“LII is either an adherent of strict systematicity, deriving all consequences from one and the same scheme, or, on the contrary, does not structure information at all, presenting it in an arbitrary, random sequence.” — Joining opposite definitions makes the characteristic uninformative, taking it out to the level of the metamodel. It is like the well-known Russian saying: “Either rain or snow, either it will happen or it won’t.”

“ILI presents things as more tangled than they actually are.” — What in this context could the notion “actually” mean? Who is acting as judge here? Such a characteristic presents the ILI as a muddler — but how is that to be derived from his model? Do the works of Honoré de Balzac, who belongs to this type, suggest any such thought? Apparently the characteristic reflects the personal experience of its author with a concrete representative of the ILI type — assuming, of course, that the type was determined correctly.

“However, an all-round developed personality does not usually come of an ILI.” — This is outright discrimination against a TIM. It is unclear how this can be derived from the model. Possibly the author drew this sad conclusion from observation of a small sample of ILI representatives — for instance, one consisting of a single person. And of course the main question: from which types do all-round developed personalities always come? Can Model A guarantee this with respect to any type whatsoever? And does the level of socionic generalisation permit such conclusions at all?

“However, natural laziness limits the growth of SEI’s contacts.” — Direct socionic discrimination against a TIM. To interpret extraverted logic in the position of the CCF as laziness means going beyond the bounds of socionic generalisation. “Natural laziness” cannot be ascribed to any TIM — it is a characteristic of a concrete person. The fact that SEI experiences difficulties in performing physical work simply means that his working vocation lies in another field, namely the field of human relations — which is precisely what corresponds to the model.

“EIE builds his relationships on trust.” — The EIE is an intuitive psychologist who feels people’s relationships and emotional states superbly (this follows from his model), and if he trusts someone, he has sufficient grounds for it — and not at all because he believes in universal justice, equality and fraternity. He feels himself in relations with people like a fish in water, and can build them on anything at all, whereas the expression “builds relationships on trust” may be taken to mean that the EIE is initially naive in relations with people and easy to deceive.

“ESE expects from those around him an understanding of his problems and cares.” — This conclusion is drawn from the ERF Es, but such an assertion, though true, is trivial, since by the ERF all types expect understanding of their problems and cares; it is another matter that these problems and cares are different for each type.

“SEI perceives muddled information poorly.” — Interesting: who perceives muddled information well?

“Business activity and industriousness are inherent in ILI only within a system of formal relations, when order and executive discipline reign.” — It is hard to agree with such an interpretation of Balzac’s CCF (iL), knowing the high productivity and industriousness of Honoré de Balzac, who belonged to no system of formal relations whatsoever and was taken as the prototype of ILI. Both experience and the model indicate that people of this type are capable of performing with utter self-abandon work they consider necessary, work that corresponds to their convictions.

“ILI cannot bear direct aggression and resists it with all his strength.” — Presumably, in this context, “cannot bear” is close to or identical in sense with “does not accept”. And apparently the aggression in question is aggression directed against him; in which case the expression is equivalent to the assertion that the ILI is not a masochist — but can such a quality, on general considerations, be ascribed to any other type? If not, then the assertion cited must be counted among the trivial ones, carrying no differentiating sense.

“If people are at enmity and do not trust one another, LSE’s health rapidly deteriorates.” — This conclusion is drawn from Stierlitz’s ERF (Ls). But what grounds are there for it? In the position of this function stands introverted ethics. This justifies considering an ethical situation: “…people are at enmity, do not trust one another…“. The negative colouring of the situation makes it possible to draw a negative conclusion — but why precisely about health, why so categorical, and why so catastrophic? Can it really be that all bearers of the Stierlitz type (Ls) are distinguished by heightened weak-nervedness? Can they really all be weaker in this respect than the bearers of all the remaining types, given that this author draws no such conclusion by the fifth function for any other type? So the author’s assertion appears improbable and unreliable.

“LSE is steadfast in his convictions; however, he does not impose them on others, although he may discuss them with a partner, and in an argument will hotly defend his point of view.” — Everything here is correct, and everything corresponds to the Stierlitz type; however, the enumerated character traits by no means reach their typological maximum in this type and are not specific to it. Ethical types are softer, and intuitive ones less categorical, but convictions corresponding to the EGO block are always stable informational complexes. And if convictions are formed, then the bearer of any type will defend them, although differences in temperament will of course manifest in how the person behaves in an argument. Someone may keep silent or try to avoid the argument, but will adhere to his convictions. As for the inclination to impose one’s convictions on others, one must first establish whether it has typological grounds or is the result of upbringing.

“LSE concentrates in his own hands the levers of material interest.” — Typologically this is characteristic at the very least of all sensory extraverts.

“IEI gets on with people who are strong and decisive, self-confident.” — This conclusion by IEI’s ERF cannot be considered correct, simply because his socionic conflictor LSE, his supervisor LIE and his supervisee ESE are all strong and decisive types, yet with them, according to socionic theory, IEI stands in strained relations. Thus here we are dealing with an unfounded generalisation and an unsuccessful interpretation of Model A.

“IEI understands the regularities of people’s emotional life well.” — The fact that representatives of the IEI type are interested in people’s emotional life, feel it and orient themselves within it, by no means signifies that they understand its regularities, since regularities are elements of theoretical research. Of course, individual representatives of this type, being scientific psychologists, may understand regularities too — but this trait is not derived from the model and does not apply to all bearers of the IEI type.

“Pleasures play a large role in the life of the IEE.” — Presumably pleasures play a sufficiently large role in the lives of people of various types, and therefore such a characteristic, without an indication of degree and quality, belongs to the class of metamodel-level statements.¹

“SLI likes it when his abilities and achievements are appraised at their true worth.” — It is held (Myers-Briggs) that this characteristic applies to all logical types, and therefore it cannot be considered differentiating.

“SLI cognises the world through sensations.” — Despite the almost ultimate simplicity and clarity of this assertion, in the context of socionics it is not so easy to comment on. On the one hand it is trivial, since it applies not only to all types but to all people, and not only to bearers of the SLI type. On the other hand, cognition of the world is a more complex process and is never reducible to sensations, whatever sense the author of the analysed phrase may have invested in the concept. If sensations are understood as the data of the sense organs, then in order to become the basis of cognition of the world they must pass through emotional, intuitive and logical processing; therefore of no type can it be said that its bearers cognise the world by their first function alone. However, if one takes into account that the contribution of the first function’s IA to the formation of the internal model of the world bears a special character, then it becomes clear that the language of the internal programs — including those correlated with the subject’s cognition of the world — has a pronounced colouring by the aspect of the first function. Therefore one may say that the result of SLI’s cognition of the world has a pronounced introverted-sensory colouring. The same may be said of SEI. Analogous statements may be made with respect to all types. Thus of ESE and EIE one may say that the result of their cognition of the world has a pronounced emotional colouring, and so on. More adequate concepts here are those of world-sensation and world-perception. This problem belongs to the sphere of epistemology and requires additional research.

“SLI will never abandon a friend in trouble.” — This characteristic would have differentiating sense if of some type it could be said that abandoning one’s friends in trouble is characteristic of its bearers. So here one may speak of covert discrimination against all the remaining types.

“SLI cannot endure monotony and boredom.” — Apparently in this respect the given type is not original. Besides, if this trait is considered typological, then it belongs to some other typology, not the socionic one.

“SLE gets lost in non-standard, illogical situations.” — Such an incorrect conclusion is drawn from Zhukov’s CCF (Sl). For an irrational extravert, non-standard, illogical, extreme situations are an activating environment in which he feels like a fish in water, where his intuition and will work at their highest limit and the decisions taken are maximally adequate to the situation. Recall the remarkable frames from the film Blockade, where the outstanding actor Ulyanov plays the outstanding commander Zhukov² and shows how, in a complex and tense — and of course non-standard — situation, the commander’s thought works with the utmost precision and at the same time emotionally.

“EII does not forgive infidelity and betrayal.” — This conclusion is drawn by the PPF. But first of all, it is hard to imagine a person who forgives infidelity and betrayal in the sense in which he understands them. Therefore such an assertion bears a metamodel character. Infidelity and betrayal, as Aušra defines them, are evaluated by the SUPERID. Therefore the conception of infidelity and betrayal differs across types depending on the informational content of the SUPERID. In any case this assertion does not correspond to the PPF.

“EII is endowed with the gift of magnanimity.” — A beautiful and even striking phrase, but here too it is undesirable to presuppose that the term is comprehensible by default. Magnanimity may be displayed by people of various types, and it is not impossible that far from identical senses will be invested in the concept. Therefore, striving to avoid the too-general, metamodel character of such assertions, it is necessary to give explanations of what it consists in. Besides, magnanimity in this context may be considered a synonym of humanism, and this turns the phrase under consideration into a synonymic interpretation of some primary assertion. Also, the notion “endowed with the gift” must be considered separately. This expression is, at the synonymic level, equivalent to the expression “has an innate talent”. Thus this assertion must be assigned to the category of strong ones, i.e. those bearing substantial information. And that means, first, that it must be proved to follow strictly from the model, and second, that it must be heuristic in the sense that other types too must have corresponding innate properties and talents. Thus, if the assertion about an innate gift is true at the typological level, then it must be used in the secondary interpretations of all types as well. On the other hand, the same author asserted earlier in his text that Dostoevsky does not forgive infidelity and betrayal, which of course must limit the degree of his magnanimity, thereby making that magnanimity more concrete.

“EII maintains even, benevolent relations with everyone.” — Of course, in this wording the phrase is obviously false, both simply because it cannot apply to EII’s enemies and because it employs one of the forms of the logical universal quantifier — “with everyone” — which at the empirical level requires verification of all concrete cases. In a more precise wording this might look like: “EII strives to maintain even, benevolent relations with everyone.” It is clear that the ideal and reality may differ considerably.

“EII is endowed with the talent of an educator, since he understands how people’s abilities should be unfolded.” — This assertion follows from the CCF of the model, and in that sense it is correct. However, refinements are needed. Dostoevsky is adequate as an educator in dealing with younger children, when his warmth of soul and gentle humanity do not run up against the resistance of adolescent self-assurance. In work with adolescents and young men, typological selection is required — that is, only compatible types should be included in the group’s composition. This is of course desirable in all other cases too, but if in Zhukov’s case it is done to protect the children, in Dostoevsky’s case the protection is needed above all by himself. At the same time Dostoevsky will be effective in pedagogical work at a higher-education institution, where young people encounter a different type of responsibility compared with school and will find emotional cover with educators of this type.

“EII treats children as adults, encouraging independence and other qualities necessary for adult life.” — This is a completely correct conclusion, since the initial respect for another person inherent in Dostoevskys manifests in his communication with people of any age. However the author permits a subtle logical carelessness in drawing this conclusion as the result of a secondary interpretation of the semantics of the CCF, whereas this is a projection of the archetype of the whole EGO and not of the communicative-probing function 4/1 alone.

“EII greatly values a friendly exchange of opinions, which creates an atmosphere of trust and respect for another person’s position.” — This assertion is an example of a subtle semantic distortion that may escape the reader on first reading. Friends come in different kinds, and in some friendly companies the exchange of opinions proceeds to the accompaniment of foul language, which is by no means Dostoevsky’s ideal. Therefore the original assertion ought to be reformulated thus: “EII greatly values a friendly exchange of opinions if it takes place in an atmosphere of trust and respect for another person’s position” — and part of the sense of this assertion differs considerably from the original, so that, strictly speaking, the two assertions are not equivalent. And of course the characteristic cited applies not only to the EII type.

“EII orients himself in the most complex life situations.” — Here complex situations are defined quantitatively (“the most”) but not qualitatively (which ones exactly), and therefore it is not clear what these life situations are. It is obvious — that is, it follows from the model — that Dostoevsky orients himself poorly in situations of choosing optimal technological schemes, and here is in acute need of support.

“People turn to EII for advice, to confirm the possibility of what they aspire to or fear.” — Of course, people of not all types turn to Dostoevskys, but only of some. Therefore if one says that “some people turn to Dostoevsky for advice”, this will be trivially plausible, although one may imagine a concrete bearer of this type to whom no one has ever turned for advice — though it is not impossible that someone yet will. Besides, the original assertion contains at least two further inaccuracies. First, it is Dostoevsky who is ready to make his capacities available when he sees a person in difficulty, and if, by force of circumstance, Dostoevsky’s need to be at least in some way necessary to other people coincides with someone’s need to settle on a decision, then both will be able to obtain satisfaction. Second, this interpretation pertains to the EGO and not merely to the CCF, as is done in the author’s text.

“EII is drawn to the new, the unusual.” — By socionic conceptions, such an assertion ought to apply to all intuitive types, if one disregards general human curiosity. Therefore it is not typologically differentiating, and at this level such an interpretation may be regarded as trivial, i.e. carrying no specific information. Besides, the author makes this assertion as an interpretation of the CCF, which is not entirely accurate, since this is an interpretation of the vertical contact block comprising the CCF and the ALF: by the CCF (I) — unusualness and novelty, and by the ALF (l) — “arming” oneself with knowledge. By this same ALF (l) Dostoevsky pursues self-education and education in general. If the remarks made are not taken into account, then by this function Dostoevsky would not differ from Dreiser.

“EII, like no one else, understands the influence of religion on people’s lives.” — Undoubtedly Dostoevsky is capable of understanding the influence of religion on people’s lives — this is a correct typological conclusion from his model. But the word-combination “like no one else”, used as an intensifying operator, lowers the reliability and adequacy of such an assertion, since other types are possibly being discriminated against and this is not specifically stipulated. And therefore such a phrase is perceived as an assertion of the absolute superiority of people of this type by the singled-out parameter. However, an analysis of the aspectual structure of the concept of religion yields an important additional distinction between extraverted and introverted religious manifestations. In the first case what is presupposed is the mass use of religious technologies for the large-scale management of people; in the second, the personal consumption of spiritual knowledge as a unique opportunity for inner development and self-realisation. In the second case the typological maximum quite plausibly falls on Dostoevsky, and in the first on Hamlet. It should additionally be noted that the author drew his conclusion by the CCF, but this is a secondary interpretation of the EGO archetype.

“EII knows how to force himself to be disciplined and diligent.” — Such an assertion looks highly plausible; nevertheless it contains a hidden defect. The author draws this conclusion by the ALF (l), interpreting it as the normative maintenance of order and discipline. Such a conclusion corresponds to the utterer’s understanding of the model. However, if the ALF is understood as adaptive-load, it will be responsible for the accumulation of means enabling one to adapt to and withstand the loading — including aggressive — pressure of the environment. And of course the ability to “force oneself to be disciplined and diligent” may prove useful in this process. But for EII, discipline and order are a subset of ethical norms, which are imperative for him by the PPF; therefore he has no need at all to force himself to adhere to what he already acknowledges as axiomatic. Whereas the exceptional perseverance and diligence of people of this type are determined by the RTF (i), which imperatively compels him to spend all the necessary time on completing work — and this is the primary interpretation of this function in Dostoevsky’s model.

“EII solves difficult tasks thanks to the large reserve of patience with which nature has endowed him.” — This conclusion is drawn by the ALF, and of course it is necessary to specify the category of difficult tasks, to specify what exactly is understood by a difficult task for Dostoevsky. There exist tasks corresponding to the Dostoevsky type, and however complex they may be, he is capable of coping with them effectively. However there is a class of tasks typologically inadequate to Dostoevskys, and for people belonging to this type solving them is of course very difficult — but thanks to patience they can cope with them, and this proceeds not by the ALF but by the ERF and RTF.

“EII, although he is very nervous in extreme situations, pulls himself together and acts decisively if those close to him are affected.” — The author draws this conclusion by the CCF, but this does not pertain to its generalised subject matter. First, the notion of an extreme situation differs for each type. Second, the general-scientific notion of an extreme situation as a natural or social disaster entailing unpredictably grave consequences reflects only part of the semantics corresponding to the possible reaction of a person of a concrete type. From the socionic point of view — that is, at the level of high conceptual generalisation — for the bearer of any type an atomic bombardment, an earthquake, a car crash or a “simple” bandit attack in an alleyway may prove almost indistinguishable in terms of behavioural reactions. This part of situations apparently goes by extraverted sensorics, into whose semantic field forceful pressure of any level also enters. However there exist situations considerably smaller in scale but capable of provoking an extreme stress state in the bearer of a concrete TIM. There are known cases in which undoubtedly courageous military generals, capable of withstanding a heavy assault at the head of their units and of fighting “to the last”, took their own lives if they were expelled from the Party or exposed in a conspiracy. That is, they could not endure disgrace or the possible meaninglessness of further existence. These situations presumably go by the SUPEREGO block.

Taking what has been said into account and returning to Dostoevsky’s behaviour in extreme situations, one may conclude that representatives of this type are possibly less adapted than others to direct — that is, forceful — resistance to external pressure. Above all because this is unacceptable to them on moral-ethical grounds; but to resist such pressure spiritually they are adapted better than all other types. Therefore in the case of natural or social disasters they may occupy the niche of effective psychological support for others, while themselves enduring all adversities with humility and submission, awaiting the onset of favourable conditions or a change for the better. At the same time, for people of this type ultimate stress situations are connected with encroachment on their human rights. Such encroachment is unacceptable in any form, but it provokes particular aversion in the form of a formal-bureaucratic attitude. This is precisely how the primary interpretation of Dostoevsky’s SUPEREGO may look.

“In EII the wave of distress rolls in only once the danger is past.” — This concrete-psychological interpretation of the CCF, first, does not correspond to the subject matter of this function, and second, does not correspond to the level of socionic generalisation. Is this trait typal with respect to Dostoevsky? There exist at least two well-described reactions to a fortunate escape from danger: the humorous refraction of everything that has happened, and the adequately realistic re-experiencing of past events — with a shudder, but without excessive exaggeration. At the same time, the repeated re-experiencing of analogous tragic events in representatives of all types always bears a dramatic character. That is, it is not typal but universal. However, in individual people with a deformed, defective or destroyed SUPEREGO, who have as a result become to some degree asocial,³ the reaction will be unpredictable and in the majority of cases inadequate. Given what has been said, one may suppose that people belonging to the Dostoevsky type will acutely experience any extreme situations, since for them these are always a violation of ethical harmony. And since in them emotional experiences are connected with function 3/2, which requires full immersion in the subject matter of the aspect, they will above all be distressed not so much for themselves as for those close to them.

“EII chooses as partners those who push him towards active work, who mobilise him, rather than those who shield him from anxieties and remove responsibility from him.” — It is hard to follow the author’s train of thought when he constructs such an interpretation of the CCF. Spheres of responsibility and its degree are in the general case distributed unevenly between partners. If the partnership is successful, that means responsibility has been distributed felicitously. From the socionic point of view, the type, as one of the subsystems of the psyche, is by no means tuned to avoiding responsibility. On the contrary, the type always presupposes a form of responsibility adequate to it. Responsibility for disciplinary order is difficult for Dostoevskys, but they easily take upon themselves responsibility for creating a positive psychological climate in relations with a partner or in a reference group. So the original phrase may be regarded as a distorted interpretation of the assertion that Dostoevsky’s relations develop most successfully with those partners who give him unambiguous instructions as to how, in what sequence and in what regime concrete work is to be performed. Such an attitude on the partners’ part removes from him responsibility for the objective connections between things, but at the same time places upon him responsibility for maintaining trusting and stable relations. Duals and activators, for example, satisfy such a requirement, and conflictors and supervisors do not — for they, after all, neither shield him from anxieties nor remove responsibility from him.

“EII feels comfortable in small but warm companies.” — An interpretation of Dostoevsky’s MMF. Of course this is a truism, i.e. an assertion true with respect to any type. It can be applied at the very least to all introverts, but it would suit extraverts too. To sit over a mug of beer with friends… what’s wrong with that? A stronger assertion might be that he feels uncomfortable in large and aggressively disposed companies — but that too belongs among the truisms. If one reformulates this as: Dostoevsky prefers to be in a close circle of intimates or well-known people, when he is able to feel a subtle emotional contact simultaneously with everyone present — this will correspond to his type, but in any case it is not a correct interpretation of the MMF. That is, one ought to add that EIIs do not merely feel comfortable in small and warm companies, but that under these conditions they are able to display their best qualities and show the highest productivity.

“EII senses the ripening of conflicts better than others.” — An example of an unfounded assertion by the ITF. Are there sufficient grounds for such an assertion? This is an assertion that the maximum of a certain trait is attained in some type, since the expression “better than others” is used. Every socionic type is the embodied maximum of a perfectly determinate property. Dostoevsky is the maximum of humanistic behaviour, but it does not follow from this that this maximum coincides with some other maximum, which would testify to their essential identity. The semantic field of conflict coincides most fully with the semantic field of Dreiser. One may suppose that the semantic field of Dostoevsky coincides most fully with conflict-freeness. Further, one may formulate the assertion that Dostoevsky evades, avoids, withdraws from conflicts — but does this mean that he senses them in advance? Undoubtedly he may sense them, but whence does it follow that he senses them better than others?

“EII is inwardly a very emotionally tense and nervous person.” — A poor description of people of the Dostoevsky type. A nervous person is already a pathology. Such an assertion can hardly apply to all representatives of this type. The use of the concept of inner emotional tension must presuppose the concept of outer emotional tension. Such an opposition must be described and theoretically grounded. Careless use of psychological terminology may easily be perceived as illiteracy.

“EII, although he knows how to control his own emotions, periodically requires emotional discharges.” — The opposition within this assertion seems neither obligatory nor logically grounded. After all, the ability to control one’s own emotions by no means presupposes the absence of a need for emotional discharges. At any rate, no such unambiguous dependence has been derived or asserted in psychology — it is not maintained that if a person is capable of controlling his own emotions then he does not need emotional discharges. In literary-stylistic terms this assertion belongs to the category of tropes with unmotivated opposition, as in the phrase: “he was thin, but rather cheerful”. Such tropes are appropriately used in humorous texts.

“EII breaks down in communication with those close to him if he catches them out in lies, egoism, indifference.” — As an interpretation this assertion bears a too-concrete character. Possibly someone has met representatives of this type who always, in any circumstances and at any time, break down — that is, one must understand, throw hysterics at their loved ones — if they catch them out in lies, egoism, indifference and other mortal sins. But possibly someone has met other representatives of this type who find other educative means in their striving and hope to influence their nearest and dearest, which follows naturally from the model of this type as inventiveness I (CCF) in the use of means of ethical influence (EGO).

“EII relates critically to his own appearance.” — The author draws this conclusion by the MMF of Dostoevsky’s model, since introverted sensorics is located there. Several remarks may be made concerning such an interpretation. First of all, the choice of the predicate “relates critically” creates the impression of something close to an accentuation, which cannot in any way pertain to the type in itself as a factor of high order. In Dostoevsky’s case one may speak of high demandingness towards himself and, among other things, towards his appearance, which corresponds to his PPF. Such demandingness bears an ethical character — appearance, as an element of the manifestation of personality, must be impeccable, must not embarrass, oppress or provoke the partner, and still less arouse revulsion in him.

And although the conclusion drawn can somehow be tied to the Dostoevsky type — for instance by broadening the semantics of the predicate used — it remains an example of a plausible conclusion obtained from incorrect premises and by an inadequate method. From the logical point of view this may be assigned to the falsification of a concept. Thus, for example, the “correct” conclusion that “whales are vertebrates”, drawn from the supposition that “whales are fish, and all fish are vertebrates, consequently…”, cannot be acknowledged as correct, since it is drawn from premises one of which is erroneous, and consequently the very concept of “whale” is thereby distorted, falsified. In logic such reasonings belong to the category of sophisms, i.e. assertions that outwardly or formally seem plausible or even true but which in essence distort reality. Therefore, when an unprepared reader encounters such an assertion and accepts it as truth, he will in fact be misled. It appears that the author of the analysed assertion drew his conclusion by attaching himself to the subject matter of the aspect, but without taking into account the semantics of the function with which this aspect is connected. The MMF, or function 2/2, the motivational-mobilizational function, with whatever aspect it may be connected, expresses an acute need for support in the subject matter of the IA — a need which cannot even be verbalised by the type’s bearer and is almost unconscious. By this function a person merely waits, silently and imperatively, for support; and if such support is forthcoming, then the type’s bearer becomes capable of the maximum return that his type presupposes. Introverted sensorics in the position of the MMF presupposes support, care, back-up for the type’s bearer in matters of well-being, health, comfort, appearance and so on. Given what has been said, of Dostoevsky by the MMF one may say that with quiet gratitude, expressed in a restrained emotional surge, he accepts care for his well-being and for everything connected with the aspect of introverted sensorics, including his appearance. In Dostoevsky’s case this does not mean that one should impose on him what clothes to wear; but helping him to choose and buy a suitable dress or suit, discussing with him the merits and defects of what is being tried on, will be appropriate, and the type’s bearer himself will accept such participation with gratitude. Besides, one must take into account that situations by the aspect of the MMF are accepted by a person as a challenge. Therefore, for example, Dostoevsky too perceives acutely everything relating to his appearance. But is the semantics of a critical attitude to one’s own appearance present here?

“EII, guided solely by personal experience, exerts volitional pressure, thereby contributing to the creation of a concrete order, a logical structure and so forth, which he understands in the spirit of assimilated social norms.” — This is an example of how one of the authors writing on socionics interprets Dostoevsky’s SUPEREGO. Despite the stipulation about “personal experience”, which apparently ought to secure a deep semantic distinction between the behaviour of Dostoevsky and Zhukov, it is hard to reconcile the characterisation of Dostoevsky cited with the general conception of this type that has taken shape not only in socionics but in the American typology as well. What is at issue is the principled non-acceptance by people of this type of any forms of volitional pressure. This by no means signifies that people of this type have no will, but it is directed above all at the type’s bearer himself, and only in extreme cases of ultimate despair may it spill outwards.

“If SLI finds an original variant of self-expression, he experiences deep satisfaction.” — Whether people want it or not, the instinct of self-realisation, connected with the archetype of time (i) and with the primary semantics of the ITF, pushes a person to seek his destiny. However, not everyone manages this quickly and easily, and many do not manage it at all. There are many reasons for this, but there are typological reasons too. One of them is the absence of a basic capacity for essential self-determination. Many people achieve a certain self-expression in one or another sphere of activity, and this often brings them a certain satisfaction, but in many cases this does not turn out to be self-realisation, since the sphere of self-expression was chosen incorrectly. For example, many people, having made a career and attained a high level of prosperity and social standing, nevertheless experience deep disappointment and often undergo an existential collapse or, in other words, a loss of the meaning of life.

The assertion analysed is not differentiating for people of the Gabin type. In fact it is a semantic tautology, since the concept of self-expression is always connected with satisfaction. This follows from the fact that self-realisation and its particular case, self-expression, are basic (instinctive) needs; and if a need is satisfied, this means precisely that the person experiences satisfaction.

I have adduced here only a small number of typical inaccuracies and errors, and this list can of course be extended (almost to infinity). But as an example this is quite sufficient to make clear how important it is to solve the theoretical problems of describing a TIM from its model or symbolic formula.

Many of the characteristics cited above belong, in NLP, to the category of metamodel ones, i.e. those possessing a sufficient degree of indeterminacy. Thanks to this, the person reading or hearing them can relatively easily correlate them with his own unconscious complexes and vague images of problems and attitudes. Without taking into account the theoretical quality of such characteristics, their use loses cognitive value — although of course it may retain aesthetic, ethical, humorous, variety-stage and other value.

3. Levels of abstraction in the interpretation of a TIM

One may also speak of various levels of abstraction in the interpretation of a TIM. In Aušra Augustinavičiūtė the ILE archetype is described at the maximally abstract level as “abstract perception of the object” [3]. However, the very same archetype may be described in words at a level whose abstractness is somewhat lower: “Intuitive apprehension of the potential possibilities of the object.” A still more concrete variant of the interpretation of the same archetype might look as follows: “The bearer of the ILE type, dealing with any object of any nature, is tuned to detecting its essence and, after a certain period of acquaintance with it, may at some moment formulate a law or principle expressing the inner nature of that object.” These are examples of terminological transformation with preservation of the abstract semantic invariant. It is precisely transformations of this kind that may be assigned to a single equivalence class in the interpretation of an archetype.

Whereas the description of the Don Quixote type (Il) by the phrase “Always full of new ideas, sees their possibilities and prospects, although they bear a somewhat nebulous character, and he is hardly likely to embody his ideas in life” — although it seems sufficiently concrete⁴ — unfortunately itself “bears a somewhat nebulous character” and belongs to the category of metamodel statements. And the second part of this characteristic — “he is hardly likely to embody his ideas in life” — is simply incorrect, since it contains a covert indication of indifference or frivolity in people of the Don Quixote type, which does not follow from the model. To correspond to the TIM of Don Quixote, this phrase might be edited as follows: “Often it is difficult for Don Quixotes to embody their ideas in life, although they may work on them for many years.” Don Quixotes, if they turn out to be scientists, are distinguished by persistence (S in ALF), scrupulousness (e in CCF) and breadth in their scientific research (I in CCF + l in CPF), but at the same time by uncertainty as to when and where a full stop can be placed in that research. This is what makes it possible to formulate the edited assertion.

As a maximally concrete interpretation of this same archetype, one might use a vivid example illustrating the behaviour of some bearer of the Don Quixote type — for instance D. I. Mendeleev: “Studying the chemical elements known in his time, D. I. Mendeleev had at his disposal all available information on the subject and persistently sought a regularity that could transform the seemingly more or less random multitude of simplest, further indecomposable substances into an ordered system. Such a system would make it possible to assess the completeness of this multitude and to predict the possibility of discovering new chemical elements in future. Continuously pondering this problem, he saw the sought-for system in a dream, and after waking reproduced what he had seen on paper. The system of elements he had found exceeded all expectations: it not only made it possible to predict the existence of several elements unknown at that time, but also to refine theoretically the parameters of some of them, since doing this in practice was difficult owing to the small quantities of the substances obtained. Subsequently Mendeleev’s periodic system of elements received international recognition, and with the development of nuclear physics still deeper physical confirmations of its correctness were obtained.”

4. Levels of description of the personality

In connection with what has been said above, one may speak of levels of description of the personality. Empirically, four such levels may be distinguished.

Innate basal (shared with other vertebrates) — the classical temperaments.
Innate typal — types of information metabolism (TIMs), socionic temperaments.
Generalised social programs — worldview, attitudes, manners, values, ideals (sociotypes).
Concrete professional and everyday programs — concrete knowledge, skills, abilities, interests, habits.

These levels may also be described deductively. For this we use the polarities “innate — acquired” (I\A) and “generalised — concrete” (G\C). The levels indicated may then be presented in the form of a dichotomous table.

Table 11.01. Levels of description of the TIM

I\A	G\C	Level
I	G	Innate basal
I	C	Innate typal
A	G	Generalised social programs
A	C	Concrete professional and everyday programs

Socionics occupies itself with describing the personality at the second level of generality. Such a description must rest on a correct⁵ interpretation of the archetypes indicated by the symbolic formulae and configurations used in socionics. Such rules yield only with great difficulty to formalisation, which is in fact the chief obstacle on the path to constructing socionic diagnostics and socionic descriptions of the types.

Above all, one must take into account that the archetypes standing behind the IAs cannot be unambiguously matched to concrete concepts, and as particular meanings they may be projected onto the most varied concepts at various levels of abstractness. Such projections are determined by the semantic field with which the IA is associated. One may always choose a worldview position in which the ontological projection of the IA is basic (see Table 11.02). Here by ontological projection we shall understand the manifestation of the aspect’s archetype in nature and, more concretely, in the environment immediately surrounding the individual. The corresponding philosophical position presupposes that the world, the habitat, is primary, and the subject of psychic activity secondary. Other philosophical positions are possible too, in which the subject is acknowledged as primary while the world and the habitat turn out to be his projections, a by-product of his self-realisation. However, from the standpoint of the field paradigm (FP), both environment and subject are merely agents of a single essence within whose framework the drama of being unfolds.

Table 11.02. Projections of the archetypes

AT	Ontological field	Psychic field
I	Potency	Potential possibilities
i	Time	Sense of a process unfolding in time
S	Reality	Forceful pressure, will
s	Value	Resource, well-being, health, value-aesthetic effect
L	Transformation	Technological activity, extraverted thinking
l	Space	Introverted thinking, logic
E	State	Emotional reaction
e	Wholeness	Relation

The interpretation of the symbolic formulae of archetypes may also, besides the various levels of abstraction, be correlated with various spheres of manifestation of the personality. Such spheres may include anatomy, physiology, emotional manifestations, intellectual peculiarities, a person’s outward appearance, his physiognomy, mimicry, plasticity, behaviour at the everyday level, generalised position with respect to people, professional parameters and much else. Descriptions of how an archetype manifests in these spheres belong to the further levels of interpretation.

5. Superposition: the first level of interpretation

The first level of interpretation of a type’s model we shall present here as a superposition — that is, an independent overlaying, and subsequent synthesis, of the semantic fields of the psychic function under consideration, of its information aspect, and of the function adjacent within the block, as well as the semantic field of the block to which the function under study belongs. Of course, one must take into account that the semantic field of a block may be regarded as the result of the synthesis of the semantic fields of the two functions belonging to it; but the use of the block’s semantic field in a number of cases simplifies the interpretation and makes it more transparent.

Thus, for example, proceeding from the fact that the PPF expresses the sphere of the personality’s potential possibilities, and the CPF the instrumental means of their presentation, promotion and creative development, the block EGO = PPF + CPF, representing the synthesis of the semantics of these two functions, will be interpreted as the domain of optimal self-realisation in which the personality acts boldly, confidently and assertively. Proceeding from this, the archetype of Don Quixote (Il) may be interpreted as intuitive (I in PPF) penetration into the essence (I in PPF) of the object (l in CPF) and the persistent development of the discovered truth (EGO) in the hope (CCF) that it will help humanity (SUPEREGO = ALF(S) + CCF(e)). Why “in the hope”? Because the ILE only hopes, since his psychic structure forbids him — unlike, for example, the SLE — to impose his ideas by force.

However, the very same combination of IAs in the block SUPERID = ERF + MMF in SEI, which points to a different archetype, will be interpreted quite differently. The ERF answers not for free command of information by the aspect but for readiness to accept such information, expectation of such information for its further direct or indirect use as far as possible and as applicable to the situation. The MMF requires soft, tactful support in accordance with the subject matter of its IA. Given what has been said, the very same IAs must be interpreted differently. Dumas’s I in ERF — that is, the aspect of extraverted intuition in the position of the ERF — may be understood as “expectation of information about the disclosure and use of potential possibilities”. The bearer of such a function may himself, in small quantities and from time to time, synthesise such information. However this is not his specialisation, and he will manage it insufficiently effectively. Even so, he will experience in the process a spiritual uplift and deep satisfaction. In particular, Dumas types realise the archetype of potential possibilities (I) relatively easily in the sphere of art (s), which is exactly what corresponds to the superposition of these aspects in Dumas’s PPF and ERF. The aspect of introverted logic in the position of the MMF, or Dumas’s l in MMF, may be interpreted as “a need, a requirement for interested communicative support in a teaching mode (l in MMF)“. At a more concrete level this may be reformulated as a non-verbalisable, unspoken need to be spoken to warmly and cordially, preferably in an instructive style (l in MMF). One may object that “all people want to be spoken to warmly and cordially”, but in this case “warmth and cordiality” will acquire a quite concretised character as “an enthusiastic retelling of original ideas, adapted to the listener’s intellectual level and delivered with great conviction and energetic drive”. In the case of other types the notion of “warmth and cordiality” may be interpreted quite differently. Of course, one might also ask: “whence, in abstract scientific reasoning, do the notions of warmth and cordiality arise?” This is a concretisation of the archetype E in the position of the MMF.

Here one must also take two further points into account. First, the available linguistic means of psychological description of the personality are specific to each language and may differ from those available in other languages both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively here means how many “psychologically coloured” words exist in the language. Qualitatively may be understood as how personality parameters are ranked and accentuated in the concrete language.

Second, the words we use to describe the psychological peculiarities of the personality only partially point to the corresponding archetype and by no means exhaust its scope. Thus the need for interpretation of modelled combinations of symbols is not always satisfied by linguistic means, since these bear, in the main, a metamodel character in the NLP sense. Psychologically coloured concepts acquire a higher degree of concreteness by being correlated with a determinate place in the model. From this point of view, the socionic model makes it possible to describe the psychological nuances of a person’s character and behaviour more precisely and subtly; and where linguistic means are lacking, it, by offering the corresponding archetype, points to the necessity of supplying such means. Some terms from socionic jargon are precisely the result of an attempt to find the concept missing in the language. Thus socionics, like other sciences, becomes a source and means of developing the language, its conceptual base and its means of expression. It must be admitted, admittedly, that many socionic neologisms have, for various reasons, proved unsuccessful. Of course this is a problem, it must be worked on, and it is a matter of time.

6. Eight principles of primary interpretation

In the primary interpretation of information aspects depending on their position in the model, we shall proceed from the following suppositions:

The interpretation must apply to all bearers of the type, without regard to the unique, atypical — or perhaps it is more correct to say non-typal (a neologism) — peculiarities of concrete individuals.
The primary interpretation must represent a synthesis of three semantic fields: the field of the function under consideration, the field of the IA, and the field of the function adjacent within the block, taking into account the semantic field of the adjacency, i.e. of the block.
The primary interpretation must correspond to the level of socionic generalisation.
Primary interpretations admit various levels of abstractness, which must be taken into account in theoretical and practical work.
Primary interpretations must be equivalent up to synonymic substitutions and syntactic transformations.
Secondary interpretations are built taking into account the semantic fields of situations and of concrete subject matter.
Tertiary interpretations may represent examples of typological manifestations of concrete people, but this must be specially stipulated so that a theoretically correct interpretation is not confused with a concrete phenomenological projection of a possible typal archetype, as is done in empirical typologies.
One may posit interpretations of a still lower level, to which might belong various commentaries, reminiscences, lyrical digressions apropos of the type, metaphors, allegories and any varieties of fantastical “embellishments” that may occur to an improvising intuitive.

End of Part 1. Part 2 covers the functional projections of each archetype (Tables 11.03–11.10), the comparative analyses (Don Quixote/Balzac, Zhukov/Gabin, London/Robespierre, Hugo/Dreiser), Table 11.11, and the sixteen sets of paired-aspect function interpretations. Part 3 covers the sixteen type descriptions with the transformational analyses of Aušra’s texts. Part 4 covers the discussion of type naming, sociotypes, Keirsey, Sedykh, and the chapter conclusions.

Chapter 11, Part 2. Functional Projections of the Archetypes

(Abbreviations as in Part 1: PPF, CPF, ALF, CCF, ERF, MMF, ITF, RTF; aspect symbols I/i, S/s, L/l, E/e; PP = potential possibilities; IA = information aspect; AT = archetype.)

7. First attempts at verbalisation

Many of the interpretations presented below look like more or less plausible assertions; some seem doubtful; and some are so difficult to understand that it is simply impossible to assess the degree of their correspondence to reality. All these nuances, it seems, are connected with the minimality of the interpretative statements and their formal proximity to the formula of the functional projection of a concrete archetype, with respect to which the habitual lexical collocability turns out to be violated. And this is despite the fact that a partial adaptation of the grammatical and lexical form of the interpretations has been carried out. Nevertheless, one may assert that the interpretations made are formally correct; but bringing them to ultimate perfection is a matter for the further work of the whole socionic community.

”The creation of time”

For example, what might the expression “the creation of time” mean as applied to the RTF of Robespierre or Dostoevsky (Table 11.09 — sic; see Table 11.04)? First of all, in accordance with its semantics, the RTF is responsible for the creation of a resource. This may be a material or an ideal product. At the level of ultimate generalisation, what is at issue may be some resource that can be consumed by someone. And since in the position of this function Robespierre or Dostoevsky has the IA i, which may be understood as time — though of course not only so — then, by the sense of the terms key to the interpretation, one may propose the phrase under consideration for verbalising the archetype’s formula. But does a reasonable way exist to make this phrase correspond to reality? From the more or less agreed conceptions of the Robespierre type in socionics, we know that people of this type collect information about the potential possibilities of objects and try to embody it in useful devices, projects or schemes for organising work and daily life. Such devices, when used, are capable of saving a considerable quantity of time. Can such creative work not be called time-saving? Analogous reasoning applies to Dostoevsky as well, who is capable of building such relations with a partner, of forming in him such a worldview, as will help him use time rationally.

”Concentration on the use of time”

“Concentration on the use of time.” — This is the verbal interpretation of the archetype of the ITF in combination with the archetype i in the models of Don Quixote and Huxley. But here one may ask: “And what — do other types relate to time somehow differently?” On theoretical considerations one can only answer this question in the affirmative. Of course, according to the model, each type has its own relation to time, to its use, perception and structuring; but this is not so easy to translate to the level of words. At any rate, when what is at issue are types in whose models the archetype i is located in an active position.

Let us try to compare Don Quixote and Balzac in this respect. In the latter, the archetype i is in the position of the PPF, which enters into the core of the personality and by which the primary attitude of the personality is determined. This combination of archetypes may be verbalised as “the primary attitude of dwelling within the flow of time”. But what should this mean in normal human language? In the end, all people are within the flow of time. In what, then, is the peculiarity of precisely this type expressed, and what is the difference between Balzac and Don Quixote, in whom the archetypes i and I occupy mutually inverse positions?

Don Quixote is concentrated on the use of time; for him time is something tangible, like water in cupped hands, flowing out through the gaps between the fingers and needing to be carried to someone dying of thirst. For him it is an absolute value. Balzac, on the other hand, is within the flow of time like a fish in water, and just as a fish is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the water, so Balzac is in thermodynamic equilibrium with time. Time is, as it were, always right beside him, and therefore he has no need to hurry anywhere. No need to hurry, because everything is happening anyway. He does exactly what he can, and attempts to make him do something faster are, at the very least, meaningless. If for Don Quixote the economy of time and the optimisation of its expenditure is a comprehensible and natural procedure, then Balzac, in a certain sense, is time itself, which goes as it goes. Therefore Balzacs are calm with respect to time, self-possessed, they do not fuss, whereas Don Quixotes try to control the use of time, glance at the clock, and invent ways of economising it.

These two types have different mottoes with respect to time. For Balzac these are “make haste slowly”, “leave me in peace and I’ll do it all in the best possible way”, and even “you are all guests of time, whereas I am already at home”. For Don Quixote: “not a minute’s rest”, “use all the time to the end”.

Table 11.03. Functional projections of archetype I


I in PPF	Direct discernment of the PP of an object or subject.
I in CPF	Creation of objects, services, projects or situations saturated with PP.
I in ALF	Use, in situations of pressure, of highly potentiated means of resistance.
I in CCF	Considers self-assertion at the expense of demonstrating one’s own PP inadmissible.
I in ERF	Expects a demonstration of programs saturated with PP.
I in MMF	Requires support by programs saturated with PP.
I in ITF	Immersion in the process of synthesising high-potential constructs.
I in RTF	End product in the form of high-potential objective or subjective technologies.

Table 11.04. Functional projections of archetype i


i in PPF	Primary attitude of dwelling within the flow of time.
i in CPF	Capacity to structure time effectively.
i in ALF	Use of time under conditions of pressure from the environment.
i in CCF	Inadmissibility of manipulating time.
i in ERF	Expectation of information about changes in time.
i in MMF	Acute need for a friendly offer of support connected with time.
i in ITF	Concentration on the use of time.
i in RTF	The creation of time.

Author’s commentary on Table 11.04 (placed at the end of the chapter in the original; reproduced here for convenience)

Table 11.04 is filled in on the condition that the archetype i is interpreted as time. However, its psychological projections may also be “vision of prospects”, “inspiration”, “enthusiasm”, “hope”, “freedom”, “independence”, “concentration”, “the inner world of the subject”, and apparently “consciousness”. All this requires further elaboration. If one uses other interpretations of the archetype i, the table might be filled in differently. For example:

i in PPF Primary concentration on the inner world. Inspiration.
i in CPF Vision of the temporal perspective. Concern with the future.
i in ALF Patiently waiting out tense situations.
i in CCF Inadmissibility of restrictions connected with time. Inner freedom.
i in ERF Need for information regarding the change of the situation in time.
i in MMF Acute need for a source of inspiration and enthusiasm.
i in ITF Concentration on the use of time. Working state.
i in RTF Creation of conditions that make a person free.

Nevertheless the semantic connection with the concept of time, the relation to time, remains here.


i in PPF	Primary concentration on the inner world. Inspiration.
i in CPF	Vision of the temporal perspective. Concern with the future.
i in ALF	Patiently waiting out tense situations.
i in CCF	Inadmissibility of restrictions connected with time. Inner freedom.
i in ERF	Need for information regarding the change of the situation in time.
i in MMF	Acute need for a source of inspiration and enthusiasm.
i in ITF	Concentration on the use of time. Working state.
i in RTF	Creation of conditions that make a person free.

As for the archetype of potential possibilities I (Table 11.03), here too there is a perfectly determinate, though hard-to-formulate, difference. For Don Quixote, “direct discernment of potential possibilities” is a primary attitude and capacity which is realised every time he finds himself face to face with a problematic object. Balzac, on the other hand, is continuously “immersed in the process of synthesising high-potential constructs”. It appears that here, unlike in Don Quixote, this is an “object-free” process; that Balzac’s imagination and fantasy find the source of their own activity within themselves. Possibly this is not so literally, but it appears that Balzac’s self-sufficiency is higher than Don Quixote’s.

With respect to the two archetypes under consideration, the semantics of the mental and vital rings (M\V) is realised differently in Balzac and Don Quixote. The full archetypes of intuition in Balzac and Don Quixote look, respectively, like i\I and I\i. The first formula might be read as “time permeated by intuition”, and the second as “intuition distributed over time”. Thus one may here speak of different accents and different dominants in functions that are in some respect similar. Analogous reasoning applies to the types Huxley and Yesenin.

8. Will and tonus: Zhukov and Gabin

The archetypes of will (S) and tonus (s) (Tables 11.05 and 11.06) are realised differently in the behaviour of, for example, such types as Zhukov and Gabin. In Zhukov, S is “the primary capacity to exert powerful volitional pressure on the objective environment”. This expression, as applied to the Zhukov type, is more or less comprehensible. In Gabin, however, S is “immersion in the process of experiencing volitional contact with the environment”. And this expression is far less comprehensible. It is clear how it is constructed, but not very clear what it means. Incidentally, this manifests the insufficiency of contemporary psychological language, into whose sphere of attention peculiarities of people of this kind never fell.

The interpretation of S for Gabin may be understood thus: that for him the ratio of the volitional capacities of partners is very important, and his psyche continuously tracks these ratios; but unlike Zhukov, his own capacity to exert volitional pressure is as it were folded up, not actualised, if there are no special reasons for it, and it does not “loom” over others. But of course, if an attempt is made to exert volitional pressure on him, you will run up against exceptional resistance. As for tonus s, for Gabin it is connected with a primary attitude: his well-being, his fitness, the creation of comfortable living conditions — all this is the object of his constant care and attention. In Zhukov, on the other hand, high tonus is the natural state of his body.

Taking into account the difference in the semantics of the mental and vital rings, the difference in the tonus-volitional complexes of Zhukov and Gabin — S\s and s\S respectively — may be assessed as “will resting upon tonus” in the first case, and “tonus maintained by will” in the second. Of course such interpretations require a more detailed commentary, but to a first approximation they give a certain hint as to how structural differences in people’s psyches manifest in their behaviour.

Table 11.05. Functional projections of archetype S


S in PPF	Primary capacity to exert powerful volitional pressure on the objective or subjective environment.
S in CPF	Instrumental use of forceful pressure in implementing one’s own life programs.
S in ALF	Use of an impulsive forceful response in loading situations.
S in CCF	Considers self-assertion at the expense of forceful pressure on the objective or subjective environment inadmissible.
S in ERF	Expects direct forceful cover.
S in MMF	Requires support by programs of forceful pressure which raise his fighting spirit.
S in ITF	Immersion in the process of experiencing volitional contact with the environment.
S in RTF	End product in the form of unconditional volitional influence.

Table 11.06. Functional projections of archetype s


s in PPF	Primary attitude towards comfortable consumption.
s in CPF	Capacity to structure consumption effectively.
s in ALF	Use of aesthetic means under conditions of pressure from the environment.
s in CCF	Inadmissibility of aesthetic manipulation.
s in ERF	Expectation of a life resource.
s in MMF	Acute need for a friendly offer of an aesthetic resource.
s in ITF	Concentration on physical tonus.
s in RTF	The creation of an aesthetic resource.

9. Extraverted and introverted thinking: London and Robespierre

The archetypes of extraverted and introverted thinking are realised differently in, for example, such types as London and Robespierre — respectively L and l (Tables 11.07 and 11.08). For London, L is “a primary attitude towards productive labour”; for Robespierre it is “concentration on the technological process”. These assertions, as applied to the types under consideration, are quite plausible and quite comprehensible. However, considering them jointly may generate certain doubts. Is London not concentrated on the technological process, and does Robespierre not engage in productive labour? Here again one may answer that all types have everything, and everyone has to deal with everything, but the accents and dominants differ for every type. The interpretations adduced are merely an attempt to verbalise the archetypal formulae somehow, and the blurred psychological concepts used in the process turn out to be insufficiently effective.

Let us nevertheless try to actualise the archetypal sense of the assertions under consideration. Representatives of the London type are physically robust, athletically built people who are, when necessary, capable of effectively using their endowments to secure a high standard of living for themselves and those close to them by labour. The play of physical forces is so characteristic of them that people of this type readily go into sport and achieve high results there, making this a source of their income. The build of Robespierres is not distinguished by might, although they may be strong, and in sport they too are capable of showing high results, especially in athletics. Robespierres win through high technique, strict adherence to training methodologies, and diligence in achieving the goal set. Representatives of the London type of course also need persistence and observance of training parameters, but this comes more easily to them; they are, in this case, as it were in an environment adequate to their type, whereas Robespierres have to conquer that environment. And it is here that we discover the subtle nuances of typological difference.

The archetype of introverted thinking l in Robespierre is, within the framework of the primary interpretation, voiced as “collection and accumulation of objective information”, and in London as “immersion in the process of high-potential structuring of images of space”. Robespierres first accumulate already existing information about the PP of objects, and then realise it in the form of high-potential devices, methodologies or technological schemes. Representatives of the London type invent and create high-potential objects “on the spot”, in the process of productive labour. They themselves make the necessary discoveries without waiting for the corresponding information to appear. Let us recall such famous representatives of this type as Newton and Edison.

All the reasoning adduced is not of an absolute character. What is at issue here can only be accents and dominants. Of course Robespierres too invent and make discoveries “on the spot”, as applied to circumstances, and Jacks do collect objective information — but people of these types have different dominants. And again we here encounter the difficulties of adequately describing archetypes, the cause of which is the blurredness of psychological concepts and the insufficient adaptedness of everyday concepts for describing subtle psychological differences between people. Undoubtedly this is an important scientific problem for psychologists, linguists, logicians and philosophers alike.

Turning to the semantics of the mental and vital rings, one may say that in London L\l is technology resting upon intellect, whereas Robespierre’s l\L is thinking resting upon technology. In these interpretations the placement of accents is unambiguously clear.

Table 11.07. Functional projections of archetype L


L in PPF	Primary attitude towards productive labour.
L in CPF	Capacity to sustain technological parameters effectively and adequately.
L in ALF	Use of productive labour under conditions of pressure from the environment.
L in CCF	Inadmissibility of imposing a labour regime.
L in ERF	Expectation of technological support.
L in MMF	Acute need for a friendly offer of labour support.
L in ITF	Concentration on the technological process.
L in RTF	The creation of technologies.

Table 11.08. Functional projections of archetype l


l in PPF	Collection and accumulation of objective information.
l in CPF	Formulation and transmission of programs having a strategic character.
l in ALF	Use of verbal means of resistance in loading situations.
l in CCF	Considers self-assertion at the expense of intellectual contrivances inadmissible.
l in ERF	Expects a demonstration of intellectual programs directed at ordering the environment.
l in MMF	Requires direct instructions and communicative support.
l in ITF	Immersion in the process of high-potential structuring of images of space.
l in RTF	End product in the form of highly organised and precision structures.

10. Emotionality and relation: Hugo and Dreiser

With the archetypes of emotionality and relation (Tables 11.09 and 11.10) matters stand analogously. For example, for Hugo the archetype E may be interpreted as “primary immersion in emotions”. This is more or less comprehensible. Visually, people of this type are perceived as though enveloped in a dense emotional cloud. Of course it would be splendid if scientists learned to fix such observations in precise scientific concepts, but for the time being one has to be content with metaphors. By contrast, the opposite type, Dreiser, looks far more emotionally restrained, and in his model the archetype E is interpreted as “concentration on emotions”. If for Hugo emotionality is a primary attitude, then for Dreiser it is a supreme value. For Hugo emotionality is a means of survival, the basic instrument for solving current problems. On the other hand, the archetype of relations e is for Hugo a supreme value, whereas for Dreiser it is the basic instrument for solving current problems, his way of modelling the surrounding environment, his typological environment.

Using the semantics of the mental and vital rings, one may say that Hugo’s emotional-relational complex E\e is emotions supporting relations, whereas Dreiser’s emotional-relational complex e\E is relations supporting emotions. Hugo builds relations resting upon emotions, while Dreiser fills relations with his partners with emotions. Here the difference is quite noticeable and substantive.

Analogous demarcations may be made in the interpretations of similar archetypes of all TIMs, but this problem stands especially acutely with respect to the opposite (extinguishment) and mirror types, where it is necessary to construe identical IAs located in symmetrical functions.

Table 11.09. Functional projections of archetype E


E in PPF	Primary immersion in emotions.
E in CPF	Capacity to form an emotional response according to the situation.
E in ALF	Use of an emotional response under conditions of pressure from the environment.
E in CCF	Inadmissibility of emotional pressure.
E in ERF	Expectation of emotional support.
E in MMF	Acute need for friendly emotional support.
E in ITF	Concentration on emotions.
E in RTF	The creation of emotional nourishment.

Table 11.10. Functional projections of archetype e


e in PPF	Primary attitude of relying on ethical norms.
e in CPF	Capacity to establish relations effectively.
e in ALF	Use of ethical means under conditions of pressure from the environment.
e in CCF	Inadmissibility of ethical manipulation.
e in ERF	Expectation of an ethical attitude towards oneself.
e in MMF	Acute need for a friendly offer of relations.
e in ITF	Concentration on relations with people.
e in RTF	The creation of relations.

11. Base semantics of the functions and blocks

Now, resting on the preceding interpretation, let us try to give interpretations of the individual functions of all TIMs taking into account the function adjacent within the block. The interpretations offered below are gathered into groups of eight functions. Above each group, in first place, is indicated the information aspect located in the position of the function being interpreted, and in second place the aspect in the position of the function adjacent within the block. Thus, for example, the combination of symbols I+l is to be understood as the alteration of the interpretation of extraverted intuition depending on introverted logic.

The level of psychological abstraction chosen corresponds to the maximal psychological generalisation of the conception of the properties and behaviour of a personality belonging to one or another type. However, sustaining this style consistently is very difficult, given the underdevelopment of the conceptual and terminological apparatus, and also because the semantic field of a type exerts an influence on the style of its interpretation. Therefore the work carried out here should be regarded as preliminary. All interested parties may take part in the further correct discussion of this result, which in no case claims to be final or original.

Table 11.11 presents one of the possible representations of Model A with the base semantics of the functions and principal blocks. By concretising the semantics of these structural units in accordance with each TIM, we obtain the primary interpretations of the models of the socionic types.

Table 11.11

Function	Sense of the function or block; verbal interpretation of the base archetype
PPF	Primary attitude, sphere of greatest competence, intuitive understanding, PP, zone of optimal realisation in accordance with the IA.
CPF	Readiness and capacity to act in accordance with the IA.
EGO	Ego (the actualised, chief meaning of life). The main thing in life.
ALF	In extreme situations and conditions of forceful pressure from without, resorts to the use of means connected with the IA.
CCF	Restricts manifestation and realisation by the IA.
SUPEREGO	(the proclaimed, illusory meaning of life) Considers it his duty, but lacks the abilities and energy for its full accomplishment.
ERF	Expects massed support by the IA.
MMF	Requires a source that awakens enthusiasm, activity by the IA.
SUPERID	(source of vital activity, vital foundation, needs, the basic meaning of life) Requires a source of stimulation, of support, and accepts the corresponding programs with inspiration. The fundamental thing in life.
ITF	Imperatively concentrated on the state corresponding to the IA.
RTF	Subconsciously fulfilling the social commission, is capable of creating a high-quality product by the IA.
ID	Id (visible life manifestations, the visible meaning of life). Occupied with performing work given the presence of external motivation. Concentration.

Questions to be answered in the primary interpretation

PPF: What is the TIM’s primary attitude? What is the zone of optimal realisation in accordance with the IA?
CPF: How, on what basis, is the TIM ready and able to act in accordance with the IA?
EGO (the actualised meaning of life): What does the given TIM consider the main thing in life?
ALF: How does the given TIM assess a situation if problems arise with the possibility of expressing its primary attitudes? Considers the use of what inadmissible? For the restriction of what? How does it act in extreme situations and conditions of forceful pressure from without; to the use of which means connected with the IA does it resort?
CCF: What does the personality consider unacceptable for itself? The manifestation and realisation of what does it restrict? Restriction in what does it not acknowledge?
SUPEREGO: What does a person proclaim as the meaning of his life, but for which he lacks the strength, time and abilities? (the proclaimed, illusory meaning of life, as, for example, Adler understood it). What, by appearances, does a person consider his duty, while lacking the abilities and energy for its full accomplishment?
ERF: In what sphere does he expect massed support?
MMF: What attitude on the part of the people around him inspires him? What awakens enthusiasm or activity by the IA?
SUPERID (source of vital activity, vital foundation): Requires a source of stimulation, of support.
ITF: What is the basis of concentration for the given person?
RTF: What does the generalised product look like for the given person?

12. Interpretation of the functions by paired aspects

I + l

PPF: Primary attitude towards intuitive penetration (I) into the essence of the object (l); intuitive understanding (I) of the PP (I) of the object (l). Breadth of abstract-theoretical interests (I + l). Understanding of abstract-theoretical subtleties (I + l).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to materialise PP (I) in objects (l); the talent of an inventor (l + I) and designer (l + I). Creation of objects and forms of activity (l) which are distinguished by practical (l) usefulness (I) and/or possess previously unknown possibilities (I).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with his potential possibilities (I) within the framework of the social structure (l).
CCF: Considers inadmissible self-assertion at the expense of demonstrating one’s own PP (I) in the sphere of the intellect (l). Considers that in communication a person ought to display rather more modesty, however clever he may be (l).
ERF: Expectation of programs conveying a conception of the special possibilities (I) that fill our world (l).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs conveying a conception of the special possibilities (I) present in the world (l).
ITF: Immersed in the creative process of synthesising high-potential (I) constructs of a practical character (l) — that is, is constantly devising schemes whose realisation promises to be productive, and, as a rule, proves to be so.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready, on the basis of logical structuring (l), to create a high-potential (I) object or activity guaranteeing a high level of material provision.

l + I

PPF: Actively accumulates objective (l) information connected with the PP (I) of objects and processes, and embodies it in concrete high-potential (I) devices, kinds of activity and projects.
CPF: With great inventiveness (I) and great enthusiasm (I) retells (l) his ideas to other people, doing so with confidence and hope that the truth he offers (I) will open their eyes and that they will be able to apply his ideas in life to their own benefit.
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with the recognition of his rights (l) or with his social position (l) in connection with creative self-expression (I). Use of verbal communicative means (l) in extreme situations, including in the case of direct forceful pressure; the ability to state arguments (l) convincingly (I) in his own defence.
CCF: Restriction of the demonstration and use of logical (l) forms of persuasion and of manipulation with ideological schemes (I). Easily sweeps aside any logical (l) argumentation if it contradicts his attitudes (I). Easily violates the established order and hierarchy (l) if his interests are infringed (I).
ERF: Expectation of active support in the sphere of structuring social space (l) with an attitude towards filling it with special meanings (I).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to an inspiredly (I) expounded (l) program (l) of optimising (l) and structuring (l) the meaning of life (I).
ITF: Immersion in the process of high-potential (I) structuring of images of space (l).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to propose variants (l) of high-potential (I) structuring (l) of images of space (l), or to take part in their productive (I) discussion (l).

S + e

PPF: Primary attitude towards subordinating (S) the people around him (e) to his own will (S). Is always a source of powerful volitional drive (S) directed at establishing contact with a partner (e).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to use direct forceful pressure (S) to restore ethical, legal and moral rightness (e). Boldly defends (S) his ethical (e) position and knows how to secure (S) the fulfilment of his demands.
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if he encounters manifestations of aggression (S) with respect to himself and his conceptions of correctness (e). Considers it inadmissible to solve ethical (e) problems by force (S).
CCF: Restricts the manifestation and realisation of forceful pressure (S) in relations between people (e). Considers it inadmissible to use ethical (e) manipulation to subordinate a partner to his influence (S).
ERF: Expects forceful support (S) in questions of interpersonal relations (e).
MMF: Is inspired and excited in situations of volitional interaction and resistance (S). The volitional tonus (S) of a partner who conducts himself correctly (e) acts as a stimulant.
ITF: Concentrated on volitional presence (S) in the situation of establishing relations with a partner (e). Senses the necessary level of volitional effort (S) in relations with people (e) and regulates it well subconsciously.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to invest in the matter all his will (S) and material means (S) in order to compel those around him to treat him with respect (e).

e + S

PPF: Primary attitude towards maintaining and preserving moral-ethical norms (e), towards their stability and unswerving (S) implementation.
CPF: Readiness and capacity to establish relations (e) quickly with another person or group of people on the basis of manipulating volitional pressure (S).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise in relations with people (e) in connection with his volitional (S) self-determination.
CCF: Adhering to natural forms of behaviour (e + I) as he understands them, does not accept the imposition (S) of ethical norms alien or incomprehensible to him (e), nor manipulation with those norms.
ERF: Expects correct treatment (e) and active volitional (S) support from a partner. He himself treats people in an extremely democratic manner (e).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs leading to the establishment of tonicising (S) and protective (e) relations.
ITF: Immersed in a state connected with concentration on maintaining relations with people (e) on the basis of authoritarian (S) domination.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to direct his will (S) and material capacities (S) towards establishing relations (e) with any partners whatever.

s + E

PPF: Primary attitude towards harmony (s), cosiness (s), comfort (s), good well-being (s), giving the possibility of experiencing positive emotions (E).
CPF: With great emotional drive (E) generates, provokes and secures sensory (s) diversity in his life, which manifests in abundant and refined consumption (s).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with his life resource (s) in connection with his emotional manifestations (E). Considers inadmissible the use of the life resource (s) for the manipulation of emotional states (E).
CCF: Does not accept generally received notions concerning usefulness (s), cosiness (s), beauty (s) and other forms of using the life resource (s), from the standpoint of the possible emotional (E) reaction to them. Considers emotional (E) manipulation with the outward manifestations (s) of the personality inadmissible.
ERF: Expects at least minimal conditions connected with provision of a life resource (s) in order to have sufficient emotional (E) tonus for work.
MMF: Relates with inspiration to emotionally (E) framed programs leading to the creation of domestic comfort (s).
ITF: Constantly maintains and remains in high sensory (s) tonus for the production of emotions (E), which become a source of energetic (E) nourishment for other people.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to create or saturate the environment with a high-quality sensory (s) component — that is, to create cosiness (s), comfort, an aesthetic filling of the environment (s) securing a high level of positive emotions (E).

E + s

PPF: Primary attitude towards high emotional (E) presence in any life situation, with the accent on the provision of a life resource (s).
CPF: The play of emotions (E), diversity and joy (E) of communication; readiness and capacity to provide a partner with tonicising emotional support (E) on the basis of joint consumption (s).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with the possibility of expressing his emotions (E) in connection with the use of the sensory (s) resource. Considers inadmissible the use of emotions (E) for restricting the freedom of sensory self-expression (s).
CCF: Restricts the manifestation and realisation of emotional states (E) to special cases connected with a deficit of the life resource (s). Does not accept restriction of emotional self-expression (E) at the expense of manipulation with the life resource (s).
ERF: Expects massed emotional (E) support coloured in the optimistic tones of hospitality and comfort (s).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs securing benevolent and massed emotional support (E) on the basis of provision with a life resource (s).
ITF: Concentrated on emotional (E) presence in relations with a partner, with an attitude towards providing him with sensory comfort (s); immersed in the experiencing of the emotional aspects of relations in connection with the creation of special forms of life resource (s).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to create an extremely high level of tonicising (s) emotional (E) nourishment and to achieve a high emotional tonus (E + s) in other people, permitting the removal of the negative consequences of everyday cares.

i + L

PPF: Primary attitude towards freedom (i) and independence (i) in work (L), towards the possibility of working without hindrance.
CPF: Readiness and capacity to offer vivid prospects (i) for the use of new technologies (L) for future (i) prosperity. Vision of promising (i) technological (L) schemes.
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with the possibilities of self-expression (i) in connection with the necessity of engaging in physical labour (L). In tense situations displays a tendency to wait it out (i), not to be drawn into it, to take up such physical labour (L) as he can manage for his own maintenance.
CCF: Is not inclined to trust promises and vague prospects (i) connected with sources of provision (L) — everything now and at once. Considers it inadmissible to restrict freedom (i) by the necessity of heavy physical labour (L).
ERF: Expects operative information about the unfolding in time of events (i) bearing economic stability (L); builds his behaviour in dependence on such information (i).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs indicating the direction of progress (i) and helping to establish technological life-support (L).
ITF: Fusion with the flow of time (i), concentration on the productive (L) structuring of his own time and the time of those around him.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to create by technological means (L) sources of time-economy (i).

L + i

PPF: Primary attitude towards high labour productivity (L) for the sake of securing the future (i). Directs his activity towards obtaining a practical result (L) and is capable of creating technological means (L) of a broad spectrum (i).
CPF: Easily grasps and operates with complex technological schemes (L) and technical norms (L) and sustains them with high precision (i) in the process of work (L).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with productive labour (L) in connection with the necessity of restricting his freedom (i). In extreme situations displays high capacity for work (L) — that is, can “roll up his sleeves” and work productively (L) in order to survive hard times (i).
CCF: As I know how, so I work. Does not accept restrictions (i) on working regimes (L). A large physical load (L) provokes inner protest (i).
ERF: Expects support in organising and performing physical work (L) as a source of life resource in the present and the future (i).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to technological programs (L) securing a high material standard of living in the present and the future (i). Requires direct material provision by the efforts of other people (L) and is ready to compel them to it.
ITF: Concentrated on the immediate realisation of a technological scheme (L), achieving high effectiveness in the potential economy of time (i).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to work (L) without letting his hands fall idle. Is distinguished by a high degree of endurance and concentration (i) at work.

S + l

PPF: Primary attitude towards subordinating the surrounding environment (l) to his own will (S). Is always a source of powerful volitional drive (S) directed at expansion and the mastery of space (l).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to establish (S) and maintain (S) order (l) decisively, with the use of group organisation (l) and disciplinary measures (l + S).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if he encounters aggression (S) with respect to himself or his social status (l). Resolutely resists (S) attempts at logical manipulation (l) or at restrictions.
CCF: Considers it inadmissible to use social organisation (l) for the establishment of power (S) over people.
ERF: Expects forceful support (S) in questions of social status (l). Given the occasion, may display effective verbal (l) aggression (S).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs of the forceful (S) transformation of the world (l) and the establishment of a just order (l).
ITF: Concentrated on volitional presence (S) in the situation of establishing social status (l). Senses the necessary level of volitional effort (S) in social “showdowns” (l) and regulates it well subconsciously.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to invest in the matter all his will (S) and material means (S) in order to secure a prestigious position in society (l), up to and including the occupation of the highest offices.

l + S

PPF: Primary attitude towards the collection and accounting of objective information (l) with the aim of its further use for the control and optimisation (S) of the social-hierarchical structure (l).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to propose plans (l) for establishing (S) order (l). Knows how to formulate precisely (l) and to issue a command adequately (l) (S).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise (S) with the recognition of his rights (l).
CCF: Restriction of the demonstration and manifestation of logical forms (l) of persuasion and manipulation (S).
ERF: Expects volitional support (S) in the organisation of living space (l) and in the striving to occupy his own place in life (l). Is open to logical argumentation (l + S).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to an authoritatively (S) expounded program (l) of self-assertion (S) in the social hierarchy (l). Requires interested communicative support (l), firm (S) and definite instructions (l).
ITF: Concentrated on the process of the volitional (S) structuring of images of space (l), which corresponds to his conceptions of order and hierarchy (l).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to propose clearly formulated instructions (l) for the use of programs of production and accumulation of material values (S).

L + s

PPF: Primary attitude towards high labour productivity (L) for the achievement of a comfortable standard of living (s). Readiness and capacity to use in his practice high technologies (L) leading to a high-quality sensory structuring of life (s).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to apply adequate and economical (s) technologies (L) giving the possibility of a sophisticated sensory (s) transformation (L) both of individual objects and of the whole living space.
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with his capacities to obtain (L) the means of life-support (s). In extreme situations displays high capacity for work (L) — that is, can “roll up his sleeves” and work productively in order to secure a subsistence minimum (s).
CCF: Does not accept rigid technological schemes (L) or a rigid regime of work (L). A large physical load worsens his well-being (s).
ERF: Expects support in the organisation and performance of physical work (L) directed at the sensory (s) structuring of life.
MMF: Relates with inspiration to technological programs (L) securing a high material standard of living (s). Requires direct material provision (s) by the efforts of other people (L) and at their expense, and is ready to entice them into it.
ITF: Concentrated on the immediate performance of current work (L) with an attitude towards obtaining a highly valuable life resource (s).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready and able to withstand extreme physical loads (s + L). High physical endurance (L) is secured by high physiological tonus (s).

s + L

PPF: Primary attitude towards practicality, usefulness, cosiness, good well-being (s); high-quality but non-demonstrative sensory self-expression (s), secured by purposeful technological activity (L).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to propose a high-quality life standard (s) secured by high labour productivity (L).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with life resources (s). Considers inadmissible the use of life resources (s) for the manipulation of the possibility of obtaining them (L).
CCF: Does not accept generally received notions concerning usefulness, cosiness, beauty (s). Considers it inadmissible to restrict the freedom of sensory self-expression (s) by the necessity of heavy physical labour (L).
ERF: Expects support in the sensory (s) structuring of life, with reliance on physical labour (L). Expects provision (L) with a life resource (s).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs securing (L) a life resource (s) and the sensory harmonisation of life (s).
ITF: Constantly maintains and remains in high physical tonus (s) directed at the performance of physical work (L).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to create (L) highly attractive forms of life resource (s).

E + i

PPF: Primary attitude towards high emotional presence (E) in all life situations, with the accent on avoiding threats and negative consequences both in the present and in the future (i).
CPF: The play of emotions (E), diversity and dramatism of communication (i + E); readiness and capacity to provide a partner with acute (i) emotional support (E).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with the necessity of expressing his emotions (E) in connection with the use of the temporal (i) resource. Considers inadmissible the use of emotions (E) and manipulation with them for the restriction of freedom (i).
CCF: Restricts the manifestation and realisation of emotional states (E) to special cases connected with the restriction of freedom (i).
ERF: Expects massed emotional support (E) coloured in dramatic tones (i); depends strongly on the emotional background of the situation (E) and the mood of the partner (E).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs securing emotional support (E) on the basis of provision with operative (i) information. Requires acute (i) emotional support (E).
ITF: Concentrated on emotional presence (E) in relations with a partner and creates conditions for the potential economy of time (i).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to create an extremely high level of inspiring (i) emotional nourishment (E).

i + E

PPF: Primary attitude towards freedom (i) and independence (i) of the emotional (E) structuring of life.
CPF: Readiness and capacity to form vivid (E) and inspiring (E) images of the future (i).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with the possibility of free (i) self-expression. In tense situations displays a tendency to wait it out (i), not to be drawn into it (i), to shift into a regime of free emotional self-expression (E).
CCF: Is not inclined to trust promises (i) and vague prospects (i) — everything now and at once. Considers it inadmissible to restrict freedom (i) by a tense emotional life (E).
ERF: Expects operative information about the unfolding in time of events (i) having a substantial emotional colouring (E).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to emotionally (E) offered programs indicating prospects of development (i).
ITF: Fusion with the flow of time (i), directed at the emotional structuring of his own time and the time of the people around him.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready by emotional means (E) to create a highly spiritualised structuring of time (i).

I + e

PPF: Primary attitude towards intuitive understanding (I) of the partner’s personality (e), intuitive penetration (I) into the psychic field of another person (e).
CPF: Readiness and capacity to offer a partner programs of the deep (I) transformation of the personality (e) on the basis of ethical (e) perfecting (I).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise with his potential possibilities (I) in connection with ethical (e) restrictions.
CCF: Restriction of the demonstration and manifestation of individual creative possibilities and talents (I) as being ethically (e) immodest.
ERF: Expects the offer of programs conducive to the deep (I) transformation of the personality (e).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs conducive to filling life with deep meaning (I) on the basis of moral perfecting (e).
ITF: Immersed in the creative process of synthesising high-potential (I) suggestions within the framework of forming relations (e).
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to raise people to high levels of spiritual illumination (I) on the basis of ethical perfecting (e).

e + I

PPF: Primary attitude towards maintaining and preserving moral-ethical norms (e) and their creative (I) application.
CPF: Readiness and capacity to establish relations (e) instantaneously with another person on the basis of understanding his potential possibilities (I).
ALF: Assesses a situation as loading if problems arise in relations with people (e) in connection with his creative (I) self-expression. Considers inadmissible the use of ethical means (e), of ethical manipulation (e), for the restriction of creativity (I).
CCF: Feeling confident in his own rightness (I), does not permit and does not accept the imposition of ethical norms alien to him (e) or manipulation with ideological schemes (I).
ERF: Expects a soft and benevolent attitude (e) and active creative (I) support from a partner. He himself treats his partner with extreme correctness (e).
MMF: Relates with inspiration to programs securing kind, protective relations (e) founded on a deep understanding (I) of human nature.
ITF: Concentrated on communication (e) with an attitude towards deeply changing the PP (I) of partners.
RTF: In response to a subconsciously perceived social commission, is ready to establish relations (e) carrying great inner possibilities (I).

13. Interpretation of the basic blocks: the scientist club

Having the primary interpretations of the functions, one may proceed to assembling the primary interpretations of the types. First, however, let us examine the interpretation of the basic blocks of the psyche — for example, in the group of scientists (sayentists), where the content is served by one and the same IAs but in different order and different vertness. This is interesting in that similar sets of symbols nevertheless yield quite differing results. We give here the simplest but concretised interpretations, corresponding to the subconscious-instinctive attitude of a living and socialised being such as a human is.

Don Quixote (Ки)

EGO: Il = cognition of the laws of the world.
SUPEREGO: Se = I must exert efforts (S) to establish good relations (e) between people; “fight for good relations between people”.
SUPERID: sE = I need minimal provision (s) in order to be content (E); “eat in order to live”. (In contrast to Dumas: “live in order to eat”.)
ID: iL = spend my time (i) in order to work (L) and create a resource.
(EGO + SUPERID): Il + sE = one must cognise the laws of nature in order to provide oneself (and others) with a life resource.
(ID + SUPEREGO): iL + Se = one must spend time on work so that no one has the right to treat you badly.

Balzac (Ба)

EGO: iL = immersed (i) in work (L).
SUPEREGO: sE = create comfort (s) so as not to experience negative emotions (E).
SUPERID: Se = I need protection (S) from bad relations (e).
ID: Il = high-potential structuring (I) of the image of space (l); spend potential possibilities (I) on creating programs for structuring space (l).
(EGO + SUPERID): iL + Se = work in order to secure protection from bad relations.
(ID + SUPEREGO): Il + sE = create high-potential structures in order to bring joy to others.

London (Ло)

EGO: Li = secure the future (i) by work (L); create in the name of the future.
SUPEREGO: Es = with great emotional uplift, provide others with a resource.
SUPERID: eS = I count on ethical treatment and inspiring support.
ID: lI = I constantly think about how to create potentiated objects.
(EGO + SUPERID): Li + eS = my work to secure the future brings me respect and support.
(ID + SUPEREGO): lI + Es = by creating potentiated objects, I secure well-being.

Robespierre (Ро)

EGO: lI = I transform the information I have collected (l) into high-potentiated objects (I).
SUPEREGO: eS = the ethical justification (e) of violence (S) is inadmissible.
SUPERID: Es = I expect emotional support in creating a life resource.
ID: Li = concentrated on the technological saving of time; I work in order to secure freedom; I use objective and subjective technologies leading to the liberation of the personality.
(EGO + SUPERID): lI + Es = one must create high-potentiated objects (lI) so that it becomes possible to take joy in consumption (Es).
(SUPEREGO + ID): Li + eS = the technological saving of time (Li) solves the problem of the personality’s liberation (eS).

End of Part 2. Part 3: the sixteen type descriptions (motto, assembly from primary interpretations, short function/block gloss, and secondary interpretations via transformational grammar), including the extended transformational analyses of Aušra’s “Characteristic of the Intuitive-Logical Extratim” and of Dostoevsky’s ID. Part 4: the polemic on type naming and sociotypes (Keirsey, Gulenko, Shulman, Sedykh, Afanasyev, Gurdjieff), the tables of alternative names, and the chapter conclusions.

In NLP, metamodel signifies a maximally general description which a concrete personality may fill with its own content. ↩
Both belong to the Zhukov type. ↩
Such asociality may vary from various degrees of cynicism to sociopathy and misanthropy. ↩
That is, not abstract. ↩
That is, performed according to rules. ↩

Socion Archive

Explorer

Chapter 11